Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1817 1818 1819 1820 1821 1822 1823 1824 1825 1826 1827 1828 1829 1830 1831 1832 Next
Comments 91201 to 91250:
-
perseus at 04:59 AM on 25 March 2011A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
For many countries I believe it is practically feasible to cut carbon emissions by 70-80% by replacing coal with a combination of natural gas, nuclear and renewables, without to much pain. However to attempt 100% reduction through renewables alone, especially without nuclear, carbon capture, or a large reserve of hydro is vastly more expensive and technically very challenging. If a 100% reduction has to be made, I wonder if alternative scenarios such an 80% reduction in carbon emissions combined with say a 10% biomass offsetting and 10% geoengineering might be more practical? I can't help but think that more practical approaches are being marginalised through extreme ideologies. On the one hand: we have our present course of 'business as usual' and striving for exponential growth, and on the other a 100% carbon reduction through renewable sources alone. -
[1and0nly] at 04:47 AM on 25 March 2011A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030Moderator Response:[DB] Hot-linked URL. Note: It is considered good form to include some accompanying text with links to help provide context. Thanks!
-
dana1981 at 04:37 AM on 25 March 2011A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
Gilles - Iceland has the highest per capita energy consumption of any country, yet it's among the lowest in per capita CO2 emissions. The only reason their emissions are still significant is that they need so much energy (because the country is so cold). If Iceland had a more average energy consumption, their emissions would be extremely low. -
Rob Honeycutt at 04:18 AM on 25 March 2011A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
Gilles... Snoozers are losers. That's like waiting to see how fast someone else can run the first lap before you get into the race. You put yourself at a distinct disadvantage. -
Gilles at 04:15 AM on 25 March 2011Those who contribute the least greenhouse gases will be most impacted by climate change
actually FF and hydropower haven't to be centralized. Historically , people began to develop small thermal and hydro power plants everywhere - they just realized after that it was better to build large networks to stabilize the grid and to gain on scale factors by building larger plants -but it is by no ways necessary. Note also that water- and windmills were abundant before : if the main plants used hydro and not windmills, it was for obvious reasons of intermittency. Water , FF and nuclear have an obvious advantage : they can have tanks. Now you can think that it is easier to do it differently - I just don't know any case where developing countries didn't increase their FF consumption. When reality contradicts principles, who is wrong? reality, or principles ? -
Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
Harry, Your general criticism has been made before and addressed by the author. Also note Anderegg 2010 which found the same conclusions using very different methods. You also have Oreskes 2004 and the positions of nearly all leading national and international scientific organizations, all of which is discussed in the is there consensus main post. -
Gilles at 03:56 AM on 25 March 2011A Plan for 100% Renewable Energy by 2050
As I said before, a country like Iceland has already much more renewable electricity than what is needed for its population (most of it being used in big aluminium and other plants). It is totally deprived of any fossil fuels (for the very good reason that the whole country is not more than 30 millions years old). So in some sense it has already achieved most of this program and has absolutely no interest in importing FF that will become more and more expensive. Yet they're producing around 9 tCO2/cap/yr, much like Germany or other countries. I don't understand very well why they don't have already applied this beautiful program - they don't even have to care about smart grids, geothermal and hydroelectricity doesn't suffer from intermittency. So before believing it's applicable to the whole world, I will wait first to see if it's applicable to the easiest cases - such as Iceland. -
Chris Colose at 03:36 AM on 25 March 2011Understanding Solar Evolution Pt. 1
Actually the extreme ultraviolet was probably greater in the distant past, even with a fainter sun, so that does matter. -
Harry Seaward at 03:07 AM on 25 March 2011Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
From the post: "Second, we know that burning fossil fuel releases CO2 into the atmosphere. The properties of CO2 were first studied by John Tyndall in the late 1850s. Tyndall was an experimental physicist interested in how different gases absorb heat. John Tyndall's observations were remarkable. His pioneering work eventually inspired physicists to develop the theory of quantum mechanics, but his results about CO2 also led Arrhenius in 1896 to the conclusion that burning fossil fuel will result in global warming. So climate science is a very old science indeed; we have known about CO2 for more than 150 years." The question asked of the climate scientists was "do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor...". The author makes a leap to focusing on CO2. That was certainly not the question asked. -
Harry Seaward at 03:03 AM on 25 March 2011Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
Questions from the survey that generated the 97% consensus figure. 1 When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant? 2 Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures? I would answer #1 as generally risen. I don't believe #2 can be answered properly unless the word "significant" clarified, or a quantitative element is added. -
CBDunkerson at 03:03 AM on 25 March 2011The Washington Times Talks Greenhouse Law
That's similar to what I was getting at with the EPA. To date there have not been any CO2 emissions limits enshrined in law. That's a strike against these suits... though suits against the tobacco industry showed that if the company in question knew that their product was harmful, but released it anyway and claimed that it was safe then they may still be liable. Like I said, I'm not sure how it will come out from a legal perspective... and politics folds into that because the EPA is trying to introduce the sort of limits that haven't existed in the past, which would then make the legal basis for such suits rock solid going forward... but that'll only happen if politics doesn't stop the EPA from acting. All of which only applies to the U.S. -
Rob Honeycutt at 02:59 AM on 25 March 2011The Washington Times Talks Greenhouse Law
Jay... I don't think anyone carries any illusions that we're going to turn off the CO2 spigot over night. We all readily admit that pretty much our entire modern society is built on burning fossil fuels of one sort or another. But, we absolutely must find alternative means to produce energy quickly and efficiently. What's playing out here with states suing over CO2 production is a tactic. It would take years to litigate such cases. Think of how complex asbestos and tobacco were. Those cases were decades in the making. But they were both effective. Ultimately this should be an issue that is taken up in Congress and some form of carbon tax systems put into place. That is the right way to do it. One way or another this has to happen otherwise the costs we pass down to later generations will be unconscionable and potentially insurmountable. -
Alexandre at 02:52 AM on 25 March 2011The Washington Times Talks Greenhouse Law
Cadbury #8 That's a good point about the law enforcement. So, assuming you're ok with the physics: knowing that CO2 amissions cause important externalities, how would you suggest this problem to be treated legally? -
Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. at 02:46 AM on 25 March 2011The Washington Times Talks Greenhouse Law
Well I'm not trying to start an argument. Please let me know if anyone sees the similarity to this problem though. I think abruptly enforcing co2 emission laws is similar to the immigration issue. Some lawmakers want to outlaw illegal immigration and round up non citizens. It isn't plausible because we've have not enforced the existing law and we can't suddenly turn around and say "okay now we're going to enforce this law and your out." I think it is similar to telling a company "Lower your emissions or else." Many might argue that companies should have seen this coming, as it has been tied up in legal issues for several years but I still think it is unreasonable. -
Alexandre at 02:42 AM on 25 March 2011The Washington Times Talks Greenhouse Law
Cadbury #2 The other responders are certainly more qualified than me, but as they said the problem with CO2 is not that it is toxic (below some 5~10% concentration, at least) or that it has a color (!!). It's its optical properties that cause IR radiation to be trapped. So the argument of the Washington Times is just a strawman. About your last paragraph: that's the problem with diffuse externalities. It's hard to pinpoint a culprit, even though everyone is to some extent. Higher CO2 concentrations have important climatic consequences, and some large emitters have played a larger role than others to change this concentration, regardless of which molecule obstructed which photon. BTW, I'm very interested in the outcome of lawsuits against such emitters. -
Rob Honeycutt at 02:25 AM on 25 March 2011The Washington Times Talks Greenhouse Law
Cadbury... The harm related to atmospheric concentrations of CO2 has nothing to do with the toxicology of CO2. It has to do with the effects on the climate system and the harm that can come from that. The EPA went to extreme lengths to detail out how and why CO2 is harmful. They published an extensive and detailed document. You might want to check it out before commenting further.Moderator Response: [grypo] Thanks, I added the EPA endangerment finding to the reading list. -
CBDunkerson at 02:20 AM on 25 March 2011The Washington Times Talks Greenhouse Law
Jay Cadbury, carbon dioxide is instantly lethal to humans at concentrations of about 10%, toxic (i.e. eventually fatal) at approximately half that, and harmful to the environment on a global scale at trace levels currently being emitted. So, no... it is not "harmless". It is colorless, but doesn't seem particularly relevant. As to the suits... I don't know how they'll play out. The nearest precedent I can think of would be suits of companies emitting sulfur dioxide and other chemicals causing acid rain. In that case legislation limiting emissions of such things was passed and the companies settled (i.e. paid up). The EPA is working on similar limits on CO2 under existing clean air legislation and while the GOP may be able to block it in the House it seems unlikely they can in the Senate. However, that largely depends on the next election. So it may well come down to politics rather than law or science. -
DSL at 02:15 AM on 25 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
LJ, it's the same old question: where does the energy being emitted by the atmosphere go? It cannot choose its path. If a molecule of CO2 3 inches above a fallow field in Idaho emits a photon downward at 3:00 in the afternoon on July 29th, and that photon is not impeded before striking the sun-warmed molecules that make up the soil, what happens to the photon? Does it slam on the brakes and say to itself "Damn, I almost violated the alleged 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!"? Or does it hit the soil and "bounce off"? Can it be absorbed? More home experiments! Take two pots of boiling water, both with a constant heat source of 90C. Place a 50C heat source ten feet (so there can be no question of convective interference) above pot no. 2. Will the temperature of pot no. 2 increase at all? Will the 50C heat source add its energy to the 90C source and make the water hotter than for pot no. 1? Yah, ok, DB. I'm done--and I barely got started. -
dana1981 at 02:09 AM on 25 March 2011The Washington Times Talks Greenhouse Law
Cadbury, please look up the definition of the term "strawman argument". And please stop saying things like "we can all agree". I'm not sure I've agreed with a single thing you've said in any of your comments to date. -
michael sweet at 02:08 AM on 25 March 2011The Washington Times Talks Greenhouse Law
Jay: Tell the 20 million people in Pakistan who's homes were flooded by AGW last summer that CO2 is harmless. Tell Tuvalu that they can all move to your home town when their country is gone. Will you provide them with new homes when they arrive? These comapnies know their product causes harm to others and they continue to deliberately cause that harm. They deserve to be sued until they pay for the harm they cause. This is the same argument that big tobacco uses: you have to proove which individual cigarette killed this person or we are not at fault. -
Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. at 01:52 AM on 25 March 2011The Washington Times Talks Greenhouse Law
Alexandre how can you say it is not harmless and colorless? People in the navy stay on submarines where the co2 concentrations are in the thousands of parts per million. Also, I think no matter what side of the debate you are on, we can all agree the lawsuits the 7 states want to open are frivolous. How is it fair that California wants to sue out of state companies when we all know they are going to ask for a bailout at some point. They want to sue a company for damages that they cannot prove and at the same time ask people to send money to their state because they ran it into the ground. Here is a scenario. California wants to sue company X and they claim that company X's emissions somehow contributed to a flood or a hurricane. How can the prosecution prove that company X's emissions directly impacted the storm? How can they directly trace the emitted co2 molecules from the company to the storm? -
Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd. at 01:42 AM on 25 March 2011Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
@moderator Sorry I only posted that statement from Happer as a response to his post about radiative forcing being well understood. I posted to try and show that there is disagreement. -
Gilles at 01:28 AM on 25 March 2011Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
"They are settled (as much as any science is every settled) in the peer reviewed litterature." Actually I disagree on this precise point : issues are discussed in the peer reviewed literature - and most often not settled. Settled issues are usually presented in textbooks and no more in peer-reviewed literature. [I guess that the correct wording in English is literature and not LITTERature, or litchurtchur ;) - littérature is french BTW ) . That's why I don't think that citing a paper or another is a real answer to contrarians - paper are published to be discussed. Now I cannot oblige you to answer my question, I was just curious whether you thought I was holding a "non scientific" position, and why. But as I said, if your conclusion is to exclude people who don't think like you - I think this is kind of missing the goal of your website.Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Operor non nutritor trolls -
Ken Lambert at 00:34 AM on 25 March 2011Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
Marcus #95-97 Bern #95 I am in favour of any energy source which is cost effective and has low or zero emissions. Coal and 'carbon pollution' just happens to be the cheapest and most reliable energy source on the Australian scene. Export of coal to less efficient and clean CO2 emitters such as in China, India and other places is a major source of revenue for State and Federal Govts. So while taxing its use here in Oz - those same Govts rely on coal export revenue for balancing budgets and providing foreign exchange so we acvnm but flat screen TV's. Those filthy 'carbon polluters' derided by our politicians were (and some still are) none other than State (Taxpayer) built run and owned electricity utilities. The filthy polluters were and are in fact - ourselves. What you have to consider is that base load 24/7 from black coal plant generates electricity for 4-5 cents per kWhr, Gas, Nuclear and Geothermal are in the 8-12 cents range. Wind 7-12 cents (depending on site and without storage). Solar PV used to be around 50 cents but that could have dropped with falling prices - please update me on this as I have not checked for some time. As for medical conditions - coal is not great, nuclear has its risks, wind induced low frequency sound effects are real enough for those affected. -
Alexandre at 00:27 AM on 25 March 2011The Washington Times Talks Greenhouse Law
"Harmless and colorless gas"... I can't believe they still use this kind of strawman. Readers should know better at this point. -
IanC at 00:14 AM on 25 March 2011Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
73 Arkadiusz, I think you should read your articles fully before before posting them. RIght after where your quote ended: "Bounoua stressed that while the model's results showed a negative feedback, it is not a strong enough response to alter the global warming trend that is expected. In fact, the present work is an example of how, over time, scientists will create more sophisticated models that will chip away at the uncertainty range of climate change and allow more accurate projections of future climate." Regarding your "cautionary tale", spending some time on google will tell you that it is far from certain that Scott and Duncan's theory is right. By the way, Scott and Duncan used computer models ! BTW it will be fallacious to assume that all paradigms will shifted because some paradigms have shifted. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 00:05 AM on 25 March 2011Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
@Moderator "... with all other forcings and feedbacks Assumed to be zero net ..." The report quoted my question NASA is not "all" - but only "negative"Moderator Response:[DB] I spoke after having read the paper itself, which I linked to, not the NASA report on the paper. I'm trying to help you understand the context of the paper.
-
Daniel Bailey at 23:53 PM on 24 March 2011Teaching Climate Science
@ rhjames (19) "Can anyone show me a model that predicts the lack of warming over the past 10 years or so? I know that people want to say it's a short term blip - we need to be talking 30 years minimum." When one filters out the cyclical noise and the effects of volcanoes on the system, it is possible to see a significant temperature vector in the data in temperature datasets, even in periods shorter than 30 years:
But it takes someone skilled in time series analysis to do the job right when dealing with extremely short time series, such as the significant warming of the globe since 2000, as shown above.
That's why most climatologists, being very conservative with what they say, prefer to use as much data as they can get (generally 30 years or more) to make their evaluations.
Otherwise what you're asking is impossible: to prove or disprove the non-existence of something.
Hope this helps,
The Yooper
-
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 23:52 PM on 24 March 2011Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
“Black Death, & that it peaked *before* the start of the Little Ice Age (14th century vs the 16th century).” There is some truth. There was exactly in 1347 - along with the beginning of the LIA. Ended (as a pandemic) in the years 1660-1670 - the beginning of the LIA maximum cold finished "life of "black death. This is another - excellent - example the lack of linearity in a world of natural phenomena ... Warming or cooling - both of which can be both the cause of the disaster and development. -
Gilles at 23:52 PM on 24 March 2011Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
"The purpose of SkS is to provide a forum for discussion of climate science relating to global warming. If it is not your goal to discuss climate science, perhaps you should find another forum more suited to your goals" Again, I don't think that scientific issues can be settled by discussions on a web forum. i'm here just as a citizen who, because of his scientific formation (actually profession), can understand scientific arguments, but I wouldn't try to give definite answers. I understood that this forum was devoted to a presentation of scientific facts towards a large audience - for me it's enough to see the "best arguments" as selected by the most convinced people to see how they sound. And if these "best arguments" don't sound terribly convincing, I'm afraid the others will be still more uncertain. So when I see things like statistics on models, or intuitive fudge factors, or simplistic logics obviously overlooking complex realities, well, that's enough for me to doubt. I have a question, by curiosity, concerning the position you believe I'm holding : is there any precise statement, that you think I would support, and that would be obviously wrong for you ? (such as "the world was created 5000 years ago", or " planets do influence the psychology of individuals") ? a good criterion to quantify the "obviously wrong" would be, as I said, that you would accept any bet even at very unfavorable odds for you. Is there such statement, in your opinion ?Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] Now you are just being silly - of course the scientific issues are not settled in discussions on a web forum and nobody has suggested they are. They are settled (as much as any science is every settled) in the peer reviewed litterature. The purpose of SkS is discussion of that science, and if you are not interested in that discussion, then please go elsewhere where the things you want to discuss are on-topic, rather than disrupt the discussion of the science here. I have not implied that you hold any position, I am not interested in guessing your position on the science [if you had a substantive point you would just make it rather than play guessing games] and have no desire to indulge your trolling any further. -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 23:32 PM on 24 March 2011Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
of course: You quote my work - paper, that further warming of 1.34 degree C (land) will have a global catastrophe ... -
Arkadiusz Semczyszak at 23:29 PM on 24 March 2011Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
I. “Y. pestis was the cause of the Black Death” - sorry is “of topic”, but it shows the way thinking about the consensus. Nobody - including Scott and Duncan - do not claim that there was Y. pestis in the LIA - as the cause of death - even strong but rare epidemic (in relation to the virus). Skeletons found in Y. pestis DNA (usually port cities ONLY !) confirms this - but just that. Work cited by ScienceDaily is a little like the views of creationists ... There is one small piece of truth. Shows how big is the resistance to new scientific research. Scott Duncan and prove that it - in great part Europe - was not species of rats - especially in the UK or Iceland - it could not be there so the plague ... II. I quote my work - paper, that further warming of 1.34 degree C (land) will have a global catastrophe ... -
grypo at 23:28 PM on 24 March 2011The Libertarian Climate Conundrum
Thanks for dropping by TTom. I'm just going to post you main thoughts here because there is no link there to get back to your comment. From here: "my chief comment would be that you and the 'libertarians' you discuss have all missed that the status quo favors massive corporations whose very status is suspect from a libertarian standpoint: they are creatures of government that could not exist without govt in their present form, and that embody moral hazard via the govt grant of limited liability to shareholders. Cato and other vocal 'libertarian' organizations are in fact corporate fronts and won't bite the hand that feeds them, and thus avoid delving too deeply when they defend a 'free market' that is predominated by organizations that are not controlled by shareholders or communities and that are dedicated to extracting gains irregardless of costs that others may be forced to bear." You explained that bit much better than I. -
Harry Seaward at 23:06 PM on 24 March 2011Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
My post @ 51 should have referenced Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post, Jan 3, 2011. My apologies. -
CBDunkerson at 22:53 PM on 24 March 2011Arctic sea ice has recovered
Philippe #24: Interesting point on the global area. Looking at the graph it seems like since 2005 the annual minimum area (blue line) has repeatedly been significantly below the long term average (grey line). There have also been several sharp dips in the growth cycle (about 6 months after the minimums) not often seen in previous years. Obviously, most of this is being driven by the collapse in the Arctic and it is too short a period to confirm that a new trend (steeper than the long term decline) has begun. That said, the latest PIOMAS update (included in the article above) shows basically no recovery of ice volume anomaly over the Winter. Not a good sign. -
les at 22:52 PM on 24 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
damorbel #821: "The Sun is at about 5780K ... The Sun occupies only a small part of the sky so we do not get a the full 5780K here, only 279K." someone; mods, NATO, the UN ... anyone please make it stop! The abuse of physics here is right up there with any human rights violations! (just so as this isn't pure rant: you do see the full temperature give or take attenuation - just not integrated over the whole of our 'aperture' (the sky), nor do we see it's full irradiance; but that does not affect the light spectrum and, therefor the temperature we see, as such)Moderator Response:[DB] You have my sympathies, FWIW. I would reiterate an earlier suggestion I made: DNFTT. And we all know by now the players in this drama. If you see recycling of earlier arguments, please point them out for deletion and possible stronger action. Thanks!
-
Marcus at 22:34 PM on 24 March 2011Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
"First: 2 + 0.6 it still is far from up to 3 degrees C ..." What the....? I was saying that roughly 2 degrees, *plus* the 0.6 we've already had, would constitute a catastrophe. When are you going to start talking sense? "... when we consider "negative feedback": “The cooling effect would be -0.3 degrees Celsius (C) (-0.5 Fahrenheit (F)) globally and -0.6 degrees C (-1.1 F) over land, compared to simulations where the feedback was not included, said Lahouari Bounoua ...”" and what negative feed-backs are these? To date I've yet to see too much evidence that we can count on that level of negative feedbacks-if any at all. What about all the possible positive feedbacks that probably have yet to be considered? As to your third point, it reads like unintelligible nonsense. The consensus remains that Y. pestis was the cause of the Black Death, & that it peaked *before* the start of the Little Ice Age (14th century vs the 16th century). Scott and Duncan are, from what I can see, the Lindzen, Spencer & Choi of Climate Science-claiming the consensus is *wrong* without feeling the need to provide solid evidence. -
damorbel at 22:32 PM on 24 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Re #824 "damorbel #820: You attribute a quotation from message #804 to me. It was actually written by KR." Very sorry! -
muoncounter at 22:26 PM on 24 March 2011Why we have a scientific consensus on climate change
#70: "I'm not here for that ... if you don't convince me, I loose nothing" Thanks for telling us, at long last, that you are not here to discuss factual matters of science. That is exactly what this discussion does not need. How can you be convinced of anything when you equate scientific study to theology? Not that the question is relevant here, but how do you personally claim to 'know' anything? Are you really the long-lost scion of Rene Descartes? What you have lost is any and all credibility in this audience. By denying the value of a fact-based discussion, you give yourself the status of talking hand-puppet; your comments are now little more than spam. -
cloa513 at 22:18 PM on 24 March 2011Wrong Answers dot com
By the way if Skeptical Science said instead of Gobal Mean Temperature. Mean (nonscientific) of measuring points (MMP) then that would be OK- but that would only be aneodotal value nothing to compare to other MMPs such NASA and GIST and certainly you can't do real analysis on it and at most you can say its seems to be increasing. Search for Does a Global Temperature Exist? Chistopher Essex. The theoretical failings of this approach go back the 1970s but are valid as they are now. Skeptic Science provides no response.Moderator Response: For a brief explanation of what's wrong with the Essex claims, see the RealClimate post "Does a Global Temperature Exist?" For more detail see the series of seven posts at Rabbett Run; go to the seventh post and click on the series of links in parentheses at the end of the title. -
CBDunkerson at 22:18 PM on 24 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
damorbel #821: "Remote controls emit high brightness narrow band IR that is focussed; the detector at the receiver can distinguish the RC bright spot against yhe background radiation coming fron your cup of tea and othe objects near you." The question isn't how the receiver distinguishes the signal from the remote from ambient energy (which you get completely wrong BTW). It is how it receives the signal at all if, as you claim, energy cannot flow from the cold remote to the warmer receiver. "The microwave energy is repeatedly reflected by the walls until, sooner or later, it encounters the food to be cooked, where it is (mostly) absorbed." But how? Are you amending the 2nd law of thermo-ridiculousness to; Energy cannot flow from cold to hot unless it is repeatedly reflected first? Still doesn't explain the remote control. "Same as 1/, except the transmitter is not focussed (much)." The IR remote isn't focused much either... which is why you can bounce the signal off a wall behind you and still have it work on the television (or whatever) in front of you. However, that still doesn't explain how either travels from cold to hot. "But sunlight still behaves with some of the properties of a 5780K source, it ionises O2 in the stratosphere to make ozone and it tans your skin, burning it if you are not careful." So now you are claiming that only the temperature of the 'origin point' of the EMR matters... it can go through cooler and warmer areas so long as none is warmer than the origin point. Yet the remote, microwave, and radio examples all show EMR traveling to areas warmer than their origin points. -
rhjames at 22:18 PM on 24 March 2011Teaching Climate Science
One basic way to test a model is to take the first half of the data (over time) to generate the model, then see if it predicts the second half of the data. Can anyone show me a model that predicts the lack of warming over the past 10 years or so? I know that people want to say it's a short term blip - we need to be talking 30 years minimum. What about a model that would have predicted the steady temperature 1940 - 1980, or the increase from 1910 - 1940. I also know about the theories of volcanoes etc to explain these, but there's too much "the model would have worked except for....." I find the speculation that we're coming into a cooling period just as convincing. I know this is getting off the track for this thread, and I apologise.Moderator Response: [Dikran Marsupial] The "lack of warming" over the last ten years is likely to be due to internal variability - it isn't climate. The models do predict that there will be occasional periods of apparent cooling even during long term warming trend, but the can't predict when they will happen as they are chaotic. See the excellent paper by Easterling and Wehner. It is unreasonable to complain that the models are not able to predict something the modellers would not claim they could model. As for the 1940-1980 levelling and the 1910-1940 warming, the models actually do predict them - see the IPCC reports. If you want to discuss this further, please do so on a more appropriate thread. -
CBDunkerson at 21:59 PM on 24 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
damorbel #819: We already covered this nonsense... you claim EM radiation behaves differently when reflected than it does when absorbed and re-emitted. Again, irrelevant even if it weren't completely false. Real world examples of each; Photographer taking a picture of a 'penguins on ice' exhibit in a zoo. The ice is colder than the mirror in the camera and the film yet the image is carried by the EM radiation from cold to hot. The ice does not 'disappear' from the picture. EMR flowing from a cooler object to a warmer one while being reflected along the way. Two identical pots of water on an electric stove. Heat them both to the maximum temperature of the stove for an extended period and then turn one off while putting the other at half heat. If energy were unable to travel from cold to hot then the pot which was warmed up to the maximum heat could not absorb and re-emit heat from the now half as hot burner and would therefor cool down at exactly the same rate as the pot whose burner was turned off (until it reached half heat and stopped cooling). Yet this does not happen. The pot with half heat cools down slower / remains boiling much longer than the pot with no heat... because even though it is (initially) hotter than the burner it is still receiving additional heat... heat flowing from a cooler object to a warmer one by absorption and re-emission. One example involves reflection, the other absorption and re-emission. Yet both show energy flowing to a cooler area from a warmer one. Ergo, the reflection vs absorption and re-emission distinction you keep making is meaningless. It is observed reality that energy can and does flow from cold to hot in either case. Your arguments continue to be complete nonsense... and you continue to avoid any attempt to address the countless real world examples proving that. damorbel #820: You attribute a quotation from message #804 to me. It was actually written by KR. -
Philippe Chantreau at 21:59 PM on 24 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
LJR, by definition, if the ability to radiate is decreased, the emissivity does change and the blackbody becomes grey. How else can it possibly manifest? It has been pointed to you earlier that this is exactly what the atmosphere does. And what was this thing again with the cooker cooler below ambient but in fact staying at the same temperature as the air? This is a waste of time. -
damorbel at 21:49 PM on 24 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Re #818 Tom Curtis you wrote:- "Following damorbel's logic @815" - no comment. -
damorbel at 21:46 PM on 24 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Re #816 CBDunkerson you wrote:- 1/"How does the EMR emitted by a remote control travel from the couch to the warmer receiver in the heat generating electronic equipment it controls?" - Remote controls emit high brightness narrow band IR that is focussed; the detector at the receiver can distinguish the RC bright spot against yhe background radiation coming fron your cup of tea and othe objects near you. Also the detectot has a filter to pass only the narrow band radiation emitted by the RC so that the effect of broadband (thermal) IR from your tea cup, the room etc., is reduced. 2/"How does the EMR emitted by a microwave oven travel from the cold walls of the oven to the warmer food being cooked?" - The microwave energy is repeatedly reflected by the walls until, sooner or later, it encounters the food to be cooked, where it is (mostly) absorbed. If there is no food in the oven the microwave energy builds up (there are warnings not to run the thing at full power when it's empty) and you will damage the device, possibly bustin the magnetron. 3/ "How does the EMR carrying radio and television broadcasts travel from the transmitter to warmer locations around it - rather than radio and television being routinely interrupted by minor local temperature variations?" - Same as 1/, except the transmitter is not focussed (much). 4/ "Heck, how does the EMR of 'sunlight' travel from the cold of space to the warmer upper atmosphere to the warmer still lower atmosphere? By your claims we should all live in perpetual darkness because sunlight cannot approach the warmer surface of the Earth." - The Sun is at about 5780K and that has the spectrum we see (well, our eyes do not see the infrared (IR) and ultraviolet (UV) but it is stil there). The Sun occupies only a small part of the sky so we do not get a the full 5780K here, only 279K. But sunlight still behaves with some of the properties of a 5780K source, it ionises O2 in the stratosphere to make ozone and it tans your skin, burning it if you are not careful. For the rest - no comment. -
TokyoTom at 21:43 PM on 24 March 2011The Libertarian Climate Conundrum
Thanks for your reference and link, grypo, and thanks for bringing attention to your post at my blog! 1. Here is what I posted in response to you: By popular demand, more meta-thoughts on climate confusion - TT's Lost in Tokyo http://bit.ly/f1HeHf 2. I also posted the following excerpts of related discussions on Dr. Judith Curry's "Libertarianism and the environment" thread: In response to 'heretic' Dr. Curry, more on my annoying, ( -snip- ) open-mindness on climate issues - TT's Lost in Tokyo http://bit.ly/f8gM4iModerator Response: [DB] Inflammatory bit snipped. Hot-linked URL. -
Marcus at 21:41 PM on 24 March 2011Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
....also, Ken, why only focus on Wind? A zero carbon future won't rely on a single source of electricity-it will rely on the integration of several sources of electricity-depending on regional factors. Bio-gas, Wind, Tidal & Solar-not to mention conventional hydro-electric power could easily replace coal for our power needs-especially when you include a decent source of energy storage for Wind, Tidal & Solar. It will also rely on a more distributed system of electricity generation-a move away from the overly centralized approach we have now. Consider it the "networked computing" approach to electricity generation. -
CBDunkerson at 21:39 PM on 24 March 2011Preventing Misinformation
RSVP, it is much more complicated than that. Cloud formation requires alot more than just water vapor in the air. Temperature, pressure, and particulates for the water vapor to condense around all play a major part. Further, clouds are extremely effective at retaining heat in the same fashion that greenhouse gases do (which is why cloudy nights are warmer than clear nights)... and the albedo vs greenhouse warming balance of clouds varies with their altitude. Studies of all these phenomena are ongoing and still have conflicting/disputed results. There seems to be a slight preponderance of evidence that clouds are having/will continue to have a small net warming effect, but that is by no means conclusive. What can be said fairly clearly is that there is absolutely no evidence that the impact of clouds will be significant enough to offset any of the major warming forcings and feedbacks... even if we assume the best case possible cooling impact from the range of uncertainty of the data their net impact is tiny in comparison to warming effects. Lindzen, Spencer, and others have suggested fanciful ways in which clouds could have massive hitherto unknown cooling effects (e.g. the 'cloud iris' hypothesis), but as each of these has been examined the data has shown otherwise. -
Marcus at 21:34 PM on 24 March 2011Zero Carbon Australia: We can do it
"Wind farms take vastly more space for the same output than a coal plant and mine. You tell me how much space you will need for 750 x 3MW wind turbines which would equate to 1 x Kogan Creek" Again I ask you-give me the details? How much area does the Kogan Creek Mine site actually take up, & how much will it eventually take up before its life is over? As I said above, the land devoted to a coal mine & its associated power station is *lost* to any other use as long as the power station is in operation-something which can't be said of Wind Turbines. As Bern & I have already pointed out to you, existing technologies already allow for much smaller footprints for Wind Farms than what you claim. If you built a Wind Farm with modern 7MW turbines-with VRB storage-you'd be able to get the output of Kogan Creek with fewer than 200 turbines. You'd also be able to get the output with much, much less energy waste during off-peak periods.
Prev 1817 1818 1819 1820 1821 1822 1823 1824 1825 1826 1827 1828 1829 1830 1831 1832 Next
